Charles Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit
927 F.3d 1123
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Charles Silberman, a person with a service dog for severe depression with psychotic episodes, sued Miami‑Dade Transit (MDT) pro se under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging repeated refusals by bus drivers to permit his service dog on buses and related discrimination.
- Silberman named MDT as the sole defendant; MDT (via the County Attorney) moved to dismiss arguing MDT is not sui juris (cannot be sued separately from Miami‑Dade County), and that claims for damages require proof of intentional discrimination/deliberate indifference by a qualifying official.
- The district court held MDT is not sui juris and dismissed the complaint without prejudice on that ground, dismissed the Title II claim with prejudice (finding Eleventh Amendment bar), and dismissed the § 504 compensatory‑damages claim without prejudice for failure to allege deliberate indifference by an appropriate official; the court gave Silberman leave to amend to name the County or add facts, which he declined.
- On appeal Silberman asked the court to substitute Miami‑Dade County for MDT; the Eleventh Circuit declined to permit substitution on appeal because MDT was never the correct party under state law and such corrections must be made in the district court.
- The Eleventh Circuit held amendment in district court would be futile because Silberman conceded that only line bus drivers discriminated and bus drivers are not the kind of "official" whose deliberate indifference can support compensatory damages under Title II or § 504.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity / substitution of party (Rule 17/43) | Silberman sought to substitute Miami‑Dade County for MDT on appeal to correct naming error. | MDT argued it is not sui juris and substitution cannot be made on appeal; such fixes belong in district court. | MDT was not the proper party; Rule 43 substitution on appeal denied—substitution must be sought in district court. |
| Whether remand to allow amendment was required (pro se leniency) | Silberman implicitly asked for leave to amend earlier; on appeal sought substitution. | MDT argued dismissal was proper and further amendment would be futile. | District court already gave leave; plaintiff declined; further amendment would be futile, so no remand required. |
| § 504 compensatory damages — deliberate indifference and qualifying "official" | Silberman argued bus drivers’ actions and MDT practices/policies support damages. | MDT argued bus drivers are line employees and not "officials" whose knowledge/authority can impute deliberate indifference to the entity. | Held that bus drivers are not sufficiently high‑level officials; plaintiff failed and cannot plead deliberate indifference by an official, so compensatory damages claim fails. |
| Title II claim and Eleventh Amendment immunity | Silberman sought damages under Title II. | MDT/County asserted Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (and argued Title II abrogation insufficient for county in these circumstances). | Court avoided deciding sovereign immunity ultimately; because Title II damages require same deliberate‑indifference standard, claim fails on the merits for same reason as § 504. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 2016) (accept facts alleged at motion‑to‑dismiss stage)
- Liese v. Indian River County Hospital District, 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference standard and requirement that an "official" with authority have actual knowledge and fail to act)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (limits on damages liability when official knowledge and failure to act are required)
- J.S. III v. Houston County Board of Education, 877 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2017) (applying Liese standard in Title II/§504 context)
- Bircoll v. Miami‑Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of Title II/§504 claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Woldeab v. DeKalb County Board of Education, 885 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2018) (sui juris/party‑capacity error and remand guidance)
- Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (four‑factor test for arm‑of‑the‑state sovereign immunity analysis)